Efficacy of favipiravir in adults with mild COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether favipiravir reduces the time to viral clearance as documented by negative RT-PCR results for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in mild cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to placebo. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, and placebo-controlled trial, adults with PCR-confirmed mild COVID-19 were recruited in an outpatient setting at seven medical facilities across Saudi Arabia. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either favipiravir 1800 mg by mouth twice daily on day 1 followed by 800 mg twice daily (n = 112) or a matching placebo (n = 119) for a total of 5 to 7 days. The primary outcome was the effect of favipiravir on reducing the time to viral clearance (by PCR test) within 15 days of starting the treatment compared to the placebo group. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: symptom resolution, hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, adverse events, and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-one patients were randomized and began the study (median age, 37 years; interquartile range (IQR): 32-44 years; 155 [67%] male), and 112 (48.5%) were assigned to the treatment group and 119 (51.5%) into the placebo group. The data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrolment because of futility at the interim analysis. The median time to viral clearance was 10 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the favipiravir group and 8 days (IQR: 6-12 days) in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.87 for the favipiravir group (95% CI 0.571-1.326; p = 0.51). The median time to clinical recovery was 7 days (IQR: 4-11 days) in the favipiravir group and 7 days (IQR: 5-10 days) in the placebo group. There was no difference between the two groups in the secondary outcome of hospital admission. There were no drug-related severe adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, favipiravir therapy in mild COVID-19 patients did not reduce the time to viral clearance within 15 days of starting the treatment.

Human genetic risk of treatment with antiviral nucleoside analog drugs that induce lethal mutagenesis: The special case of molnupiravir.

This review considers antiviral nucleoside analog drugs, including ribavirin, favipiravir, and molnupiravir, which induce genome error catastrophe in SARS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 via lethal mutagenesis as a mode of action. In vitro data indicate that molnupiravir may be 100 times more potent as an antiviral agent than ribavirin or favipiravir. Molnupiravir has recently demonstrated efficacy in a phase 3 clinical trial. Because of its anticipated global use, its relative potency, and the reported in vitro "host" cell mutagenicity of its active principle, ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine, we have reviewed the development of molnupiravir and its genotoxicity safety evaluation, as well as the genotoxicity profiles of three congeners, that is, ribavirin, favipiravir, and 5-(2-chloroethyl)-2'-deoxyuridine. We consider the potential genetic risks of molnupiravir on the basis of all available information and focus on the need for additional human genotoxicity data and follow-up in patients treated with molnupiravir and similar drugs. Such human data are especially relevant for antiviral NAs that have the potential of permanently modifying the genomes of treated patients and/or causing human teratogenicity or embryotoxicity. We conclude that the results of preclinical genotoxicity studies and phase 1 human clinical safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics are critical components of drug safety assessments and sentinels of unanticipated adverse health effects. We provide our rationale for performing more thorough genotoxicity testing prior to and within phase 1 clinical trials, including human PIG-A and error corrected next generation sequencing (duplex sequencing) studies in DNA and mitochondrial DNA of patients treated with antiviral NAs that induce genome error catastrophe via lethal mutagenesis.

The therapeutic efficacy of quercetin in combination with antiviral drugs in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A randomized controlled trial.

In this study, the therapeutic efficacy of quercetin in combination with remdesivir and favipiravir, were evaluated in severe hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Our main objective was to assess the ability of quercetin for preventing the progression of the disease into critical phase, and reducing the levels of inflammatory markers related to SARS-Cov-2 pathogenesis. Through an open-label clinical trial, 60 severe cases were randomly divided into control and intervention groups. During a 7-day period, patients in the control group received antivirals, i.e., remdesivir or favipiravir, while the intervention group was treated with 1000 mg of quercetin daily in addition to the antiviral drugs. According to the results, taking quercetin was significantly associated with partial earlier discharge and reduced serum levels of ALP, q-CRP, and LDH in the intervention group. Furthermore, although the values were in normal range, the statistical outputs showed significant increase in hemoglobin level and respiratory rate in patients who were taking quercetin. Based on our observations, quercetin is safe and effective in lowering the serum levels of ALP, q-CRP, and LDH as critical markers involved in COVID-19 severity. However, according to the non-significant borderline results in comparing the mortality, the ICU-admission rate, and the duration of ICU-admission, further studies can be helpful to compensate the limitations of our study and clarify the therapeutic potential of quercetin in COVID-19 treatments.

Evaluation of favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19 based on the real-world.

BACKGROUND: The role of favipiravir (FVP) as a COVID-19 treatment is recognized but not fully elucidated. We aimed to evaluate whether FVP has definite clinical efficacy and safety in the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: International and Chinese databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating FVP for the treatment of COVID-19. A meta-analysis was performed and published literature was synthesized to evaluate the corresponding therapeutic effects. RESULTS: We included 13 studies (1430 patients in total). Meta-analysis showed that patients with mild-to-moderate disease treated with FVP had a significantly higher viral clearance rate than those in the control group 10 and 14 days after initiation of treatment [RR: 1.13 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.28), P = 0.04; I2 = 39% for day 10 and RR: 1.16 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.30), P = 0.008; I2 = 38% for day 14] and a significantly shorter hospital stay [MD: -1.52 (95% CI: -2.82, -0.23), P = 0.02; I2 = 0%]. CONCLUSIONS: FVP significantly promotes viral clearance and reduces the hospitalization duration in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 patients, which can reduce the risk of severe disease outcomes in patients. However, more importantly, the results showed no benefit of FVP in severe patients, and caution should be taken regarding the treatment options of FVP in severe patients.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYThe urgent need to identify effective interventions to treat novel coronavirus infections is a major challenge. The role of favipiravir (FVP) as a COVID-19 treatment is recognized but not fully elucidated. Our study showed a significant correlation between viral clearance and the promotion of clinical improvement with FVP in mild-to-moderate patients, which is significant for reducing the length of hospital stay of patients, reducing the risk of patients progressing to severe disease, thereby reducing mortality. However, the results showed no benefit of FVP in severe patients and the conclusion of this study still needs to be further verified by clinical trials with large samples.

Favipiravir-induced cutaneous adverse reactions in patients infected with COVID-19.

Favipiravir (FVP) has been used for treatment of COVID-19 in many countries. We analysed the incidence of FVP-induced cutaneous adverse reactions (CARs) in patients infected with COVID-19 who were hospitalized at Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, a principal centre of emerging infectious disease in Thailand, and who presented with cutaneous eruption following FVP prescription. We identified five cases of FVP-induced CARs: two patients with maculopapular rash, two with urticarial rash, and one with Stevens-Johnson syndrome. The median interval between FVP treatment and rash occurrence was 7 days and the mean duration of the rash was 5 days. This report highlights that FVP can induce CARs, particularly eruptions, in COVID-19-infected patients. Clinicians should be aware of this possible drug-related allergy, and it should be excluded as a cause of rash during FVP treatment of COVID-19.

Effect of drug metabolism in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 from an entirely computational perspective.

Understanding the effects of metabolism on the rational design of novel and more effective drugs is still a considerable challenge. To the best of our knowledge, there are no entirely computational strategies that make it possible to predict these effects. From this perspective, the development of such methodologies could contribute to significantly reduce the side effects of medicines, leading to the emergence of more effective and safer drugs. Thereby, in this study, our strategy is based on simulating the electron ionization mass spectrometry (EI-MS) fragmentation of the drug molecules and combined with molecular docking and ADMET models in two different situations. In the first model, the drug is docked without considering the possible metabolic effects. In the second model, each of the intermediates from the EI-MS results is docked, and metabolism occurs before the drug accesses the biological target. As a proof of concept, in this work, we investigate the main antiviral drugs used in clinical research to treat COVID-19. As a result, our strategy made it possible to assess the biological activity and toxicity of all potential by-products. We believed that our findings provide new chemical insights that can benefit the rational development of novel drugs in the future.

The safety profile of favipiravir in COVID-19 patients with severe renal impairment.

OBJECTIVE: The safety profile of favipiravir in patients with severe renal impairment has not been investigated and available data are insufficient. The study aimed to compare the incidence of favipiravir-associated adverse events amongst patients with varying renal function statuses. METHODS: Records of 921 patients who were hospitalised for COVID-19 and had received at least 5 days of favipiravir treatment were retrospectively evaluated and 228 patients were included in the study. Patients' age, sex, comorbidities, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and haematological and biochemical values were recorded. The incidence of adverse events was compared with the age, sex, comorbidities and eGFR of the patients. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 59.3 ± 15.6 years, and 38.2% of the patients were women. One hundred and thirty-one (57.5%) patients had experienced adverse events. These adverse effects consisted of ALT elevation (35.5%), AST elevation (21.5%), anaemia (16.2%), hyperuricaemia (10.5%), hepatocellular injury (9.2%), neutropenia (3.5%) and thrombocytopenia (2.6%). The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different when patients had eGFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m2 or eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P > .05), but significantly increased when the eGFR dropped to <30 (P < .05). The differences seen with hyperuricaemia and anaemia were significant (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Even though favipiravir appeared to be well tolerated in the individuals with renal failure in this study, its use in this population remains a challenge that requires more research and analysis.

Safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the safety and efficacy of a treatment protocol containing Favipiravir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a multicenter randomized open-labeled clinical trial on moderate to severe cases infections of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with typical ground glass appearance on chest computerized tomography scan (CT scan) and oxygen saturation (SpO2) of less than 93% were enrolled. They were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (1.6 gr loading, 1.8 gr daily) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (800/200 mg daily) treatment regimens in addition to standard care. In-hospital mortality, ICU admission, intubation, time to clinical recovery, changes in daily SpO2 after 5 min discontinuation of supplemental oxygen, and length of hospital stay were quantified and compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 380 patients were randomly allocated into Favipiravir (193) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir (187) groups in 13 centers. The number of deaths, intubations, and ICU admissions were not significantly different (26, 27, 31 and 21, 17, 25 respectively). Mean hospital stay was also not different (7.9 days [SD = 6] in the Favipiravir and 8.1 [SD = 6.5] days in Lopinavir/Ritonavir groups) (p = 0.61). Time to clinical recovery in the Favipiravir group was similar to Lopinavir/Ritonavir group (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75 - 1.17) and likewise the changes in the daily SpO2 after discontinuation of supplemental oxygen (p = 0.46) CONCLUSION: Adding Favipiravir to the treatment protocol did not reduce the number of ICU admissions or intubations or In-hospital mortality compared to Lopinavir/Ritonavir regimen. It also did not shorten time to clinical recovery and length of hospital stay.

Cardiovascular Considerations of Remdesivir and Favipiravir in the Treatment of COVID-19.

After the outbreak of COVID-19, many novel drugs have been introduced to improve patients' conditions. Remdesivir and Favipiravir are among the most common drugs used against SARS-CoV-2. Although promising, cardiovascular side effects of these drugs should be considered by physicians and nurses. In this study, we searched databases for assessing the cardiovascular side effects of Remdesivir and Favipiravir. It seems that despite the beneficial effects of these drugs, due to the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 and cardiovascular side effects of these drugs, which can overlap with each other, the use of these drugs can be a challenging issue in the cardiovascular practice.

Effectiveness of favipiravir in COVID-19: a live systematic review.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for the effectiveness of Favipiravir on the fatality and the requirement of mechanical ventilation for the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. We searched available literature and reported it by using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Until June 1, 2021, we searched PubMed, bioRxiv, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar by using the keywords "Favipiravir" and terms synonymous with COVID-19. Studies for Favipiravir treatment compared to standard of care among moderate and severe COVID-19 patients were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) and ROBINS-I assessment tool for non-randomized studies. We defined the outcome measures as fatality and requirement for mechanical ventilation. A total of 2702 studies were identified and 12 clinical trials with 1636 patients were analyzed. Nine out of 12 studies were randomized controlled trials. Among the randomized studies, one study has low risk of bias, six studies have moderate risk of bias, and 2 studies have high risk of bias. Observational studies were identified as having moderate risk of bias and non-randomized study was found to have serious risk of bias. Our meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference between the intervention and the comparator on fatality rate (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.64-1.94) and mechanical ventilation requirement (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.13-1.95). There is no significant difference in fatality rate and mechanical ventilation requirement between Favipiravir treatment and the standard of care in moderate and severe COVID-19 patients.

Fluorescence of ocular surface in a Covid -19 patient after Favipiravir treatment: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Favipiravir is used in treatment of Covid-19 patients. We aimed to share of ocular surface fluorescence in a patient after Favipiravir treatment in this case report. CASE PRESENTATION: A 20-year-old male patient declared no known systemic disease prior to Covid-19. He applied to us with blurry vision and blue light reflection after Covid-19 treatment with Favipiravir. We observed bilateral fluorescence on his eyes and fluorescence of his nails. Biomicroscopic examination was insignificant. CONCLUSION: We investigated the fluorescence of favipiravir tablets under ultraviolet light. Drug demonstrated fluorescence. We recorded the favipiravir fluorescence in-vitro. This appears to be a strong evidence in terms of the linkage between the fluorescence of the ocular surface and favipiravir.

Favipiravir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Favipiravir possesses high utility for treating patients with COVID-19. However, research examining the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for patients with COVID-19 is limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of published studies reporting the efficacy of favipiravir against COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MedRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception to September 2020) to identify eligible studies. A meta-analysis was performed to measure viral clearance and clinical improvement as the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Among 11 eligible studies, 5 included a comparator group. Comparing to the comparator group, the favipiravir group exhibited significantly better viral clearance on day 7 after the initiation of treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 2.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.19-5.22), whereas no difference was noted on day 14 (OR = 2.19, 95% CI = 0.69-6.95). Although clinical improvement was significantly better in the favipiravir group on both days 7 and 14, the improvement was better on day 14 (OR = 3.03, 95% CI = 1.17-7.80) than on day 7 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.03-2.49). The estimated proportions of patients with viral clearance in the favipiravir arm on days 7 and 14 were 65.42 and 88.9%, respectively, versus 43.42 and 78.79%, respectively, in the comparator group. The estimated proportions of patients with clinical improvement on days 7 and 14 in the favipiravir group were 54.33 and 84.63%, respectively, compared with 34.40 and 65.77%, respectively, in the comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Favipiravir induces viral clearance by 7 days and contributes to clinical improvement within 14 days. The results indicated that favipiravir has strong possibility for treating COVID-19, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate illness. Additional well-designed studies, including examinations of the dose and duration of treatment, are crucial for reaching definitive conclusions.

Management of COVID-19 in patients with seizures: Mechanisms of action of potential COVID-19 drug treatments and consideration for potential drug-drug interactions with anti-seizure medications.

In regard to the global pandemic of COVID-19, it seems that persons with epilepsy (PWE) are not more vulnerable to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, nor are they more susceptible to a critical course of the disease. However, management of acute seizures in patients with COVID-19 as well as management of PWE and COVID-19 needs to consider potential drug-drug interactions between antiseizure drugs and candidate drugs currently assessed as therapeutic options for COVID-19. Repurposing of several licensed and investigational drugs is discussed for therapeutic management of COVID-19. While for none of these approaches, efficacy and tolerability has been confirmed yet in sufficiently powered and controlled clinical studies, testing is ongoing with multiple clinical trials worldwide. Here, we have summarized the possible mechanisms of action of drugs currently considered as potential therapeutic options for COVID-19 management along with possible and confirmed drug-drug interactions that should be considered for a combination of antiseizure drugs and COVID-19 candidate drugs. Our review suggests that potential drug-drug interactions should be taken into account with drugs such as chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir while remdesivir and tocilizumab may be less prone to clinically relevant interactions with ASMs.

Effectiveness and safety of favipiravir compared to supportive care in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study with propensity score matching sensitivity analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Favipiravir is a repurposed drug to treat coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Due to a lack of available real-world data, we assessed its effectiveness and safety in moderately to critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in two public/specialty hospitals in Saudi Arabia. We included patients ≥18 years) admitted April-August 2020 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasopharyngeal swab. Patients received either favipiravir (1800 mg or 1600 mg twice daily loading dose, followed by 800 mg or 600 mg twice daily) or supportive-care treatment. Patients were excluded if they were outside the study period, classified as having a mild form of the disease per WHO criteria, or had an incomplete patient file. Kaplan-Meier (KM) models were used to estimate median time to discharge. Discharge ratios, progression to mechanical ventilation, and mortality outcomes were estimated across the severity spectrum using Cox proportional-hazards models. As a sensitivity analysis, we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: Overall, median time to discharge was 10 days (95%CI = 9-10) in the favipiravir arm versus 15 days (95%CI = 14-16) in the supportive-care arm. The accelerated discharge benefit was seen across the COVID-19 spectrum of severity. The adjusted discharge ratio was 1.96 (95%CI = 1.56-2.46). Progression to mechanical ventilation was slower with favipiravir (HRadj = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.04-0.29). There was no significant effect on mortality (HRadj = 1.56, 95%CI = 0.73-3.36). There was a statistically non-significant trend toward worse outcomes in the critical category (HRadj = 2.80, 95%CI = 0.99-7.89). Age was an independent risk factor for mortality in mechanically ventilated patients. PSM analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Favipiravir was associated with clinical benefits, including accelerated discharge rate and less progression to mechanical ventilation; however, no overall mortality benefits were seen across the severity spectrum.

Favipiravir in the treatment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 RNA recurrent positive after discharge: A multicenter, open-label, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The clinical characteristics and treatment of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 after recovery remained elusive. Effective antiviral therapy is important for tackling these patients. We assessed the efficacy and safety of favipiravir for treating these patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial in SARS-CoV-2 RNA re-positive patients. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either favipiravir, in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was time to achieve a consecutive twice (at intervals of more than 24 h) negative RT-PCR result for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab and sputum sample. RESULTS: Between March 27 and May 9, 2020, 55 patients underwent randomization; 36 were assigned to the favipiravir group and 19 were assigned to the control group. Favipiravir group had a significantly shorter time from start of study treatment to negative nasopharyngeal swab and sputum than control group (median 17 vs. 26 days); hazard ratio 2.1 (95% CI [1.1-4.0], p = 0.038). The proportion of virus shedding in favipiravir group was higher than control group (80.6% [29/36] vs. 52.6% [10/19], p = 0.030, respectively). C-reactive protein decreased significantly after treatment in the favipiravir group (p = 0.016). The adverse events were generally mild and self-limiting. CONCLUSION: Favipiravir was safe and superior to control in shortening the duration of viral shedding in SARS-CoV-2 RNA recurrent positive after discharge. However, a larger scale and randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is required to confirm our conclusion.

Safety and efficacy of favipiravir versus hydroxychloroquine in management of COVID-19: A randomised controlled trial.

Favipiravir is considered a potential treatment for COVID-19 due its efficacy against different viral infections. We aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 mild and moderate cases. It was randomized-controlled open-label interventional phase 3 clinical trial [NCT04349241]. 100 patients were recruited from 18th April till 18th May. 50 patients received favipiravir 3200 mg at day 1 followed by 600 mg twice (day 2-day 10). 50 patients received hydroxychloroquine 800 mg at day 1 followed by 200 mg twice (day 2-10) and oral oseltamivir 75 mg/12 h/day for 10 days. Patients were enrolled from Ain Shams University Hospital and Assiut University Hospital. Both arms were comparable as regards demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The average onset of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity was 8.1 and 8.3 days in HCQ-arm and favipiravir-arm respectively. 55.1% of those on HCQ-arm turned PCR negative at/or before 7th day from diagnosis compared to 48% in favipiravir-arm (p = 0.7). 4 patients in FVP arm developed transient transaminitis on the other hand heartburn and nausea were reported in about 20 patients in HCQ-arm. Only one patient in HCQ-arm died after developing acute myocarditis resulted in acute heart failure. Favipiravir is a safe effective alternative for hydroxychloroquine in mild or moderate COVID-19 infected patients.

A case of COVID-19 diagnosed with favipiravir-induced drug fever based on a positive drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test.

As of October 2020, there is still no specific drug to treat COVID-19 as it rages worldwide. Favipiravir, indicated for the treatment of new and re-emerging influenza infections, has been suggested to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, although this is not yet fully validated. We administered favipiravir to a 64-year-old female patient with COVID-19. Her symptoms resolved quickly after the start of treatment, with reduction of SARS-CoV-2 viral load, but she developed a fever again on day 12. Since the fever was relieved by discontinuation of favipiravir, and based on positive results with a drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test, we diagnosed her with favipiravir-induced drug fever. A decrease in the serum concentration of favipiravir was observed along with resolution of the fever. The present case suggests that drug fever should be considered in the differential diagnosis of relapsing fever episodes in COVID-19 patients receiving favipiravir.

[The praise of uncertainty: a systematic living review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug treatments for patients with covid-19.] / L'elogio dell'incertezza: una revisione sistematica living per valutare l'efficacia e la sicurezza dei trattamenti farmacologici per pazienti affetti da covid-19.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a coronavirus that causes a disease which can leads to a severe form of fatal pneumonia. At december 2020 in Italy, more than 2 million people have contracted the virus and 78,755 people have died. The scientific community is studying and testing numerous compounds that can be effective and safe for treating people with covid-19. AIM: To synthesize and evaluate the quality of evidence of efficacy and safety for the treatment. The available evidence is summarized in a living systematic review, a review that is constantly updated on the basis of the results of the new clinical studies. METHODS: A bibliographic search is launched weekly on the electronic databases and on the main clinical trial registers. Two researchers independently select the articles and assess the quality of the studies using the criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the certainty of the overall quality of the evidence is assessed using the GRADE criteria. RESULTS: At 31/12/2020, 101 randomized controlled studies were included that consider 72 different comparisons and include a total of 55,281 patients. 37 drugs are tested with respect to the standard treatment, 6 are evaluated against placebo and finally 29 compare different drugs with each other. By selecting studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of a drug compared to standard treatment, which include at least 2 studies and which have low to high certainty of evidence, results show that corticosteroids, remdesivir, favipiravir, immunoglobulins, colchicine, and umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell infusion could reduce overall mortality. No differences for the risk of any adverse events are observed between convalescent plasma and remdesivir compared to standard treatment. Remdesivir probably reduces the risk of serious adverse events; a similar effect, although less strong, is also noted for tocilizumab and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination. In contrast, hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids and convalescent plasma transfusion are associated with safety concerns with respect to the risk of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The 101 studies included consider 72 comparisons and numerous outcomes, the results often coming from single studies and of small dimensions, and for 61% with a very low certainty of evidence, are difficult to summarize and the final result is to increase the uncertainty rather than providing useful information to the clinic and research. From all the work carried out it seems to us that the pandemic has highlighted the many shadows of scientific literature as tool to improve knowledge.

Pharmacological treatment during CoViD-19 and mental health issues.

Infection outbreak has been prevalent since previous decades. The impact of infection outbreak not merely limited to physical suffering but grounded for massive mental health issues. The fear of getting contagion and persistent exposure to diverse medication and vaccination contribute enormously to develop mental health issues among people. During previous infection treatment with diverse vaccination and antiviral agent, the common mental health issues found to be a mood disorder, delirium, schizophrenia, and psychotic symptoms. Cumbersomely, it is almost impossible to treat mental health issues during the pandemic with the help of only pharmacological availability. Hence psychological intervention is also important to ameliorate better consequences. The current study highlights the impact of CoViD-19 related diverse medication and vaccination on the mental health of the people.

Tocilizumab combined with favipiravir in the treatment of COVID-19: A multicenter trial in a small sample size.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, COVID-19 has spread to almost every corner of the world. In theory, tocilizumab and favipiravir are considered to be reliable drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 with elevated IL-6. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab combined with favipiravir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a multicenter trial in adults with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned (3:1:1) to a 14-day combination of favipiravir combined with tocilizumab (combination group), favipiravir, and tocilizumab. The primary outcome was the cumulative lung lesion remission rate (lung CT examination indicated absorption of lung inflammation). RESULTS: Between Feb 2 and March 15, 2020, 26 patients were recruited; 14 were randomly assigned to the combination group, 7 were assigned to the favipiravir group and 5 were assigned to the tocilizumab group. The cumulative lung lesion remission rate at day 14 was significantly higher in combination group as compared with favipiravir group (P = 0.019, HR 2.66 95 % CI [1.08-6.53]). And there was also a significant difference between tocilizumab and favipivavir (P = 0.034, HR 3.16, 95 % CI 0.62-16.10). In addition, there was no significant difference between the combination group and the tocilizumab group (P = 0.575, HR 1.28 95 %CI 0.39-4.23). Furthermore, combined therapy can also significantly relieve clinical symptoms and help blood routine to return to normal. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab combined with or without favipiravir can effectively improve the pulmonary inflammation of COVID-19 patients and inhibit the deterioration of the disease.